12 ms·

How Industry Weaponizes Science and Sows Doubt to Serve Their Agenda

185 points by anarbadalov 5y ago

tgbugs 5y ago
A recent related discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29084104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29084104.
LNSY 5y ago
Obligatory reference to "Seeing Like a State". We are in a similar situation to Russia in the 1930's -- an ideological chasm where recognizing science and reality disrupts the order of society. We are careening into the ditch. Mammon then Famine.
- seneca 5y ago
  Dead on. So much "research" is modern western Lysenkoism, accompanied by endless demands to "listen to the science". Corrupting science, whether for political or financial gain, is existentially threatening, but seems incredibly popular.
  - cronix 5y ago
    And labeling people as conspiracy theorists if they dare question it, even if they are in a position to do so. A lot of people will just start self-censoring and not bring up the questions. It takes someone with impeccable credentials, integrity and enough FU money to rise above that, and we don't seem to have many of those left. They know if you google their name and articles with "conspiracy theorist" come up that they are basically blacklisted from their industry, which is too big of a risk for most to navigate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
buitreVirtual 5y ago
Fake or misleading science these days is used not only for commercial purposes, but also to advance agendas such as those of anti-vaxxers. Just take a look at the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin crazes.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  A lot of that winds up being commercial purposes if you dig down far enough. Antivax sites like Natural News are often also selling things like dietary supplements. Some of the big pushers of alternative COVID treatments make bank off the telemedicine appointments to get a prescription for them, too. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-drives-trump-telemedicine-website-rcna1791 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-dri...
  - simion314 5y ago
    What I do not understand from this conspiracies is why do "big pharma reason" also applies for China,India, Russia - I am sure China would prefer to have their citizens healthy and working so they would not suppress the miracle of some wonder-plant/pill/exercise to make rich some western companies and destroy their national economy.
    - ThaJay 5y ago
      China has big pharma too and they pivoted from authoritarian socialism to authoritarian capitalism, they're just making money now and don't care about their poor any more.
      - simion314 5y ago
        >China has big pharma too Why do you say this? anything I can read about ? From what I see in the news the government makes a plan for the future and executes it, it does not care about some billionaires or some company. China does not need to create a convoluted scheme to pump money into some company, so it makes no sense. They could just give the population the miracle medicine/plant stuff and then write a contract for the big pharma for some vitamins that will be mandatory.
WhompingWindows 5y ago
Where is the line between objective science and subjective science? Is the work truly science if it is funded and heavily motivated by industry to increase the industry's profits? Or is it advertising and marketing masquerading as science, cloaking itself in claims of objectivity, when only we educated folk know to follow the money and the affiliations? If science is a set of methods and tools to discover truth, it does make sense that there are self-interested "parasites" which feed off this reputation for their own ends. Sadly, it does seem these parasites are bad for us: smoking, sugar, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, low-fat diet lies, not to mention cottage industries of fake internet reviews, bots, trolls, paid shills, who go on forums and social media to sell their snake oil.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  If that's the line, then there can be no objective science, as all funding organizations have motives beyond curiosity.
  - praptak 5y ago
    Isn't it the perfect solution fallacy? Take a government funding basic research, with some hope there will be profit from this. Take an industry which damages public health and funds lies to cover this up. Both have motives beyond curiosity, yet I think that there is at least a chance that the government-funded research is objective.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      If you take it too far, sure. But I'd suggest that the notion of "objective" is itself the idea taken too far. In practice, we all have material interests in the world. I think it's much more useful to think of "objective" not as a binary or a destination that one arrives at. But more a direction, like "up", that one moves in.
      - jes 5y ago
        I think David Deutsch has suggested that to be objective is to be sincere in identifying and correcting errors in one’s analysis.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
I get nervous every time I see the word “weaponize” in an article. It is usually talking about some neutral tool (like science or speech or encryption or the Internet) and complaining that people they don’t like are using it in a way they don’t like. The biggest epistemological advantage of science is that it is self-correcting even in the face of biased scientists. Suppression of science or only allowing science to be used or funded certain ways is self-defeating.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Suppression of science [...] is self-defeating. That depends on what your goals are, doesn't it? If you were a tobacco exec in the 90s seeking a golden parachute, I rather suspect it was highly successful.
- titzer 5y ago
  > it is self-correcting Unfortunately we can't reverse environmental disasters, poisoning, cancer, and death, so we really need to be proactive on some things.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    This is appeal to fear, a logical fallacy.
    - titzer 5y ago
      That's absurd. Being careful with irreversible damage is not fear, it's completely rational.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  I don't see any real problem with that usage. It seems like the right way to express that a neutral tool is being used to cause harm — that is, as a weapon. For example, if you complained that my eight year-old is weaponizing a hammer, you'd be a) probably right, and b) correctly expressing that he's using it in a way that's likely to cause harm.
- 5y ago
barney54 5y ago
This isn't really how "industry" weaponized science, but how the "tobacco industry" weaponized science. That's a story we call know. How about other examples?
- newsclues 5y ago
  Fossil fuels, sugar vs fat… Covid-19
  - Croftengea 5y ago
    I think that fossil fuel scientific bias goth both ways.
    - mistrial9 5y ago
      "goth bias" apparently
    - SQueeeeeL 5y ago
      This comment makes me feel like I live in a very boring cyperpunk dystopia
    - mistrial9 5y ago
      comments above say it is not possible to lack bias, given a system of funders, competing Principal Investigators, and imperfect researchers. The comment "fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways" reduces that even more to "both of two sides do this" which leaps into a simplistic duality, where in fact there is system and multiple topics. In other words, this comment leads to direct polarized partisanship.. far removed from actual scientific practice If topic at hand is "How Industry Weaponizes Research", the comment "fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways" of "both sides" (as if there were only two sides to anything) is an example of "How to Weaponize comments on YNews" (!)
    - queuebert 5y ago
      Possibly, but one way has MUCH worse consequences than the other.
yehosef 5y ago
This. Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. It doesn't mean that the science has been bent or broken, but it's a warning sign. I think it should be clear that now more than ever that big corporations have the "means" to influence politicians, media, scientists and the general public in fantastic and dreadfully successful ways. If this influence will result in their profit, you have the "motive". How to unwind this mess is a bit more or a puzzle - looking for solutions.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. Is there anything, any issue, that doesn't involve large corporations making lots of money? If we second-guess science just because it profits some corporation with a product to sell then we won't ever get around to making real changes. California just halted sales of small IC engine (leave blowers and the like). That's a boon for all sorts of battery makers. But it is still a small step in the right direction.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Who was funding the physicists and chemists in the extremely productive 1880-1940 era? I know it was universities, but who was funding them? Genuinely have no idea how things worked back then, especially in Europe.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      Industry was funding most of them, not universities. Because they were interested in all of the various applications to metallurgy, design of engines, new compounds and medicines, etc. To the degree that the public funded research, it was military labs and industries contracted by the military. The idea of universities funding basic research really took off in the postwar era when we funneled trillions of dollars into universities, massively expanding them and reshaping them. Prior to that, universities were much smaller and did not have a substantial body of faculty doing research, they focused on education and training. In modern universities, the faculty focuses on research and teaching is done by teaching assistants and non-tenured faculty, often working on short term contracts. That is all a consequence of the flood of government grants unleashed after the 1940s. Prior to the 1940s, most research was done by private enterprise or the military.
Ambolia 5y ago
I don't trust anything in science that has not been actualized either as an engineering project or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world. Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology, social sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody from 1000 years ago could have done.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  > or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world. Impossible standard to prove. > Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology, social sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody from 1000 years ago could have done. The myth of the paleo* = good is so dumb.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Nutrition science is quite complex and much of the published literature is simply junk. A lot of what we thought we knew a few decades ago turned out to be wrong. So it's not entirely unreasonable to ignore the science altogether and just eat the same foods that your ancestors ate before agriculture. It might not be optimal from a nutrition standpoint, but it's unlikely to be too far wrong. Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements.
    - Pensacola 5y ago
      > Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements. You're right: most of the protein in the diets of our paleolithic ancestors came from insects and leftover carrion from the kills of more optimized carnivores. I've never seen these recommended in a Paleo diet.
  - csee 5y ago
    I don't agree it's dumb (perhaps fashionable incarnations are dumb, but not the general idea of being inspired by an ancestral diet). We evolved in that setting and our bodies were optimized for our ancestors' diet. This doesn't mean we should commit the naturalistic fallacy but as a first approximation it's a good rule of thumb. The other thing is our understanding of nutritional science is so, so bad. It's just such a difficult area to attack with the scientific method. We've made good progress for sure but there's still so many unknowns.
refurb 5y ago
As someone who has published in scientific journals, you’d be surprised how subjective things get at the bleeding edge when there isn’t hard data to prove things one way or another. A good example might be Covid vaccines. Do they elicit an immune response? Yes! Do they prevent severe disease? Yes! Do they prevent transmission? Data suggests they do. How long does that effect last for? Seems to be 6 months, maybe 9 months. What impact does the Delta virus have? Vaccines are still effective, but less so, but not 100% sure about transmission risk or longevity of immune response. There is “based on all known data, we strongly believe X” and there is “data proves X is true”. Those aren’t the same thing.
bluefox 5y ago
It's not just science, but also technology and other areas of research. Bigco throws money at some technological choices (think programming languages, or methods of machine learning, or fields like distributed computing, cryptography), and academia follows to dance at that pole. As a result, research becomes synonymous with advancing current industry choices, and all alternatives become obscure, even undignified.
vzcx 5y ago
It's foolish to think it's just about money and industry. I mean, yes, be very skeptical of publications that justify an outcome their funders' wanted. But why should that stop at industry? Should we be so naive as to think that all the other science funders and fundees up to and including NSF itself don't have their own "agendas", not necessarily aligned at all with figuring out what's true and what's not? Top of the agenda of all institutions is to survive, and second is to grow. In industry, that means making more money and making it more efficiently. In academia? Here our currency is "impact". In government? Here our currency is "power". "Impact" is really just another word for power. The desire for power, for relevance, and for status are just as potent, and just as corrupt when compared to what you might consider an "ideal science", one whose practitioners are motivated by something like "curiosity." How much has our Science been influenced from these directions? It's a disturbing question, right? I mean, can you even imagine that article? "How Scientists Weaponize Science to Create Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones and Serve Their Agenda (moar sinecures and grant money)". "How Bureaucracy Weaponizes Science and Sows Compliance to Serve Their Agenda (moar sinecures, bigger slice of the budget pie)". Seems crazy, right? But is it? A Minister of Truth is a bureaucrat with a bureaucrat's salary, and has no real interest in "profits" beyond holding onto his position and advancing in the ranks. Such an organization is basically outside the realm of the market and profit-motives, and yet, would you trust such a ministry to produce good science? If not, why not? Of course, we do not have an official ministry of truth, but if you adjust the telescope lens to bring into focus the constellation of universities, government agencies and other funding apparatus, it is rather difficult for me to distinguish what we do have from that one unified ministry. "They're the same picture." The org-chart is just more complicated.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  This is a shell game that masks motivations rather than revealing them. If what you're saying is that the same corrupting influences from industry act on governments, then that's obviously true. If you're saying that the corruption of government emanates from somewhere other than the interests of business (or rather, the owners of business), I'd almost accuse you of dualism. Grants, budgets, and sinecures are also handed out by the owners of industry/finance using the tool of government. Following the money always leads to the same place. edit: all we can do is attack corruption loudly and specifically when we see it, and trust nothing until we have to. The result of that is anti-vax and a return to flat-eartherism, but what can you expect from a system that prioritizes the desires of tiny elites over truth?
mannanj 5y ago
I'd love to know how the vaccine industry for COVID-19 vaccines has peddled the research in the last 2 years or so. Have they done the same thing for generic drugs like Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Monoclonal Antibodies ("More research is needed")? I'd imagine it wouldn't be difficult to see which trade organizations were involved in which papers that circulated recently around these drugs. Before COVID-19 these were touted as the most safe drugs, with a very small history of death or complications.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Exactly my thought when I read this pull quote: If you don’t like the science that’s out there, create some of your own. And then claim “we need more research.” And then label your opposition as a bunch of close-minded fanatics.
- jabthedang 5y ago
  Dang, there seems to be some vaccine hesitant dangerous misinforming talk in the parent comment: please deal with this asap! We all know that Pfizer and the other pharma corps are just _helping_ us out of the _kindness_ of their hearts, are super _trustworthy_ and even so virtuous as to be _heroes_!! They learned from the scandal of big tobacco that crime doesn't pay and that it's better to be honest instead of doubling down on lobbying & propaganda. They even sponsor news that relates to their products. And now they're coming out with a pill that has nothing in common with Ivermectin and supposedly gets much better results! Yay!!
  - mannanj 5y ago
    Yeah. That sounds like a true story. Back on topic: is there a tool or product that can help figure out the funding sources of papers by a given topic over a timeframe? I.e. the ivermectin or hydroxyq papers published over last year-2?
blurbleblurble 5y ago
This just reminds me of the lack of popular, informed, critical, literate conversation about the risks (privacy risks and others) of widespread, centralized mm-wave cell networks. It's an awful taboo. People think you're spouting conspiracy theories when you link to published, peer reviewed papers that lay it all out. Or worse, industry whitepapers that literally spell out surveillance applications will get perceived as conspiratorial pseudoscientific nonsense. In the name of science. It's a sick inversion of the conspiracy theory dynamic. In the mm-wave cell network case, industries, governments and academics are spelling out the plan and implementing it in broad daylight. But if you speak critically of the plan, you don't know what you're talking about because you're no science expert. Well and even if you have a PhD in science, it's in the wrong field so you must be crazy. Anyhow, a lot of the most interesting stuff gets relegated to the fringes, especially when it has the potential to stir up dominant social or political perspectives. It's gaslighting by orthodoxy.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  yes agree - product liability is the "third rail" of public science in Western markets IMHO
- Anthony-G 5y ago
  I know nothing about this issue: I had to look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency to learn what mm-wave electromagnetic radiation is. Other than attenuation caused by rain-drop scattering and atmospheric absorption, I couldn’t find much information about the downsides of using EHF EMR in the context of cell networks. Can you recommend any good summaries of developments in this area and its associated risks (privacy or otherwise)?
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > Can you recommend any good summaries of developments in this area and its associated risks (privacy or otherwise)? GP is probably thinking of privacy risks like: "Using WiFi to see through walls" https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133936-using-wifi-to-see-through-walls https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133936-using-wifi-to-see... The frequencies GP is talking about are higher than current WiFi, but a bit lower than the frequencies used for the terahertz radar that can show exactly what you look like naked. So, mm wavelengths ought to be adequate to show size, position, movement, posture, gestures (probably including finger and jaw movement), sightlines, and so on, more than enough to create deepfake video reconstructions of the interior of almost any dwelling and their inhabitants, though probably not quite enough detail to be able to tell that you gained a couple of pounds this week, and definitely not enough to reconstruct facial expressions. Letting your own devices detect all that with active sensing would be bad enough, but being able to get the same info with passive sensing from outside is seriously creepy.
travisgriggs 5y ago
In case you too can't actually read the graphic at the top of the paper: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement_to_Cigarette_Smokers https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement_to_Cigarett... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement#/media/File:A_Frank_Statement.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement#/media/File:...
Borrible 5y ago
Well then, thank you for smoking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Smoking_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Smoking_(novel)

185 points by anarbadalov 5y ago

A recent related discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29084104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29084104.

LNSY 5y ago

Obligatory reference to "Seeing Like a State". We are in a similar situation to Russia in the 1930's -- an ideological chasm where recognizing science and reality disrupts the order of society. We are careening into the ditch. Mammon then Famine.

seneca 5y ago
Dead on. So much "research" is modern western Lysenkoism, accompanied by endless demands to "listen to the science". Corrupting science, whether for political or financial gain, is existentially threatening, but seems incredibly popular.
- cronix 5y ago
  And labeling people as conspiracy theorists if they dare question it, even if they are in a position to do so. A lot of people will just start self-censoring and not bring up the questions. It takes someone with impeccable credentials, integrity and enough FU money to rise above that, and we don't seem to have many of those left. They know if you google their name and articles with "conspiracy theorist" come up that they are basically blacklisted from their industry, which is too big of a risk for most to navigate.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

buitreVirtual 5y ago

Fake or misleading science these days is used not only for commercial purposes, but also to advance agendas such as those of anti-vaxxers. Just take a look at the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin crazes.

ceejayoz 5y ago
A lot of that winds up being commercial purposes if you dig down far enough. Antivax sites like Natural News are often also selling things like dietary supplements. Some of the big pushers of alternative COVID treatments make bank off the telemedicine appointments to get a prescription for them, too. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-drives-trump-telemedicine-website-rcna1791 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-dri...
- simion314 5y ago
  What I do not understand from this conspiracies is why do "big pharma reason" also applies for China,India, Russia - I am sure China would prefer to have their citizens healthy and working so they would not suppress the miracle of some wonder-plant/pill/exercise to make rich some western companies and destroy their national economy.
  - ThaJay 5y ago
    China has big pharma too and they pivoted from authoritarian socialism to authoritarian capitalism, they're just making money now and don't care about their poor any more.
    - simion314 5y ago
      >China has big pharma too Why do you say this? anything I can read about ? From what I see in the news the government makes a plan for the future and executes it, it does not care about some billionaires or some company. China does not need to create a convoluted scheme to pump money into some company, so it makes no sense. They could just give the population the miracle medicine/plant stuff and then write a contract for the big pharma for some vitamins that will be mandatory.

WhompingWindows 5y ago

Where is the line between objective science and subjective science? Is the work truly science if it is funded and heavily motivated by industry to increase the industry's profits? Or is it advertising and marketing masquerading as science, cloaking itself in claims of objectivity, when only we educated folk know to follow the money and the affiliations? If science is a set of methods and tools to discover truth, it does make sense that there are self-interested "parasites" which feed off this reputation for their own ends. Sadly, it does seem these parasites are bad for us: smoking, sugar, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, low-fat diet lies, not to mention cottage industries of fake internet reviews, bots, trolls, paid shills, who go on forums and social media to sell their snake oil.

fallingknife 5y ago
If that's the line, then there can be no objective science, as all funding organizations have motives beyond curiosity.
- praptak 5y ago
  Isn't it the perfect solution fallacy? Take a government funding basic research, with some hope there will be profit from this. Take an industry which damages public health and funds lies to cover this up. Both have motives beyond curiosity, yet I think that there is at least a chance that the government-funded research is objective.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    If you take it too far, sure. But I'd suggest that the notion of "objective" is itself the idea taken too far. In practice, we all have material interests in the world. I think it's much more useful to think of "objective" not as a binary or a destination that one arrives at. But more a direction, like "up", that one moves in.
    - jes 5y ago
      I think David Deutsch has suggested that to be objective is to be sincere in identifying and correcting errors in one’s analysis.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

I get nervous every time I see the word “weaponize” in an article. It is usually talking about some neutral tool (like science or speech or encryption or the Internet) and complaining that people they don’t like are using it in a way they don’t like. The biggest epistemological advantage of science is that it is self-correcting even in the face of biased scientists. Suppression of science or only allowing science to be used or funded certain ways is self-defeating.

_jal 5y ago
> Suppression of science [...] is self-defeating. That depends on what your goals are, doesn't it? If you were a tobacco exec in the 90s seeking a golden parachute, I rather suspect it was highly successful.
titzer 5y ago
> it is self-correcting Unfortunately we can't reverse environmental disasters, poisoning, cancer, and death, so we really need to be proactive on some things.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  This is appeal to fear, a logical fallacy.
  - titzer 5y ago
    That's absurd. Being careful with irreversible damage is not fear, it's completely rational.
JasonFruit 5y ago
I don't see any real problem with that usage. It seems like the right way to express that a neutral tool is being used to cause harm — that is, as a weapon. For example, if you complained that my eight year-old is weaponizing a hammer, you'd be a) probably right, and b) correctly expressing that he's using it in a way that's likely to cause harm.
5y ago

barney54 5y ago

This isn't really how "industry" weaponized science, but how the "tobacco industry" weaponized science. That's a story we call know. How about other examples?

newsclues 5y ago
Fossil fuels, sugar vs fat… Covid-19
- Croftengea 5y ago
  I think that fossil fuel scientific bias goth both ways.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    "goth bias" apparently
  - SQueeeeeL 5y ago
    This comment makes me feel like I live in a very boring cyperpunk dystopia
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    comments above say it is not possible to lack bias, given a system of funders, competing Principal Investigators, and imperfect researchers. The comment "fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways" reduces that even more to "both of two sides do this" which leaps into a simplistic duality, where in fact there is system and multiple topics. In other words, this comment leads to direct polarized partisanship.. far removed from actual scientific practice If topic at hand is "How Industry Weaponizes Research", the comment "fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways" of "both sides" (as if there were only two sides to anything) is an example of "How to Weaponize comments on YNews" (!)
  - queuebert 5y ago
    Possibly, but one way has MUCH worse consequences than the other.

yehosef 5y ago

This. Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. It doesn't mean that the science has been bent or broken, but it's a warning sign. I think it should be clear that now more than ever that big corporations have the "means" to influence politicians, media, scientists and the general public in fantastic and dreadfully successful ways. If this influence will result in their profit, you have the "motive". How to unwind this mess is a bit more or a puzzle - looking for solutions.

sandworm101 5y ago
>> Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. Is there anything, any issue, that doesn't involve large corporations making lots of money? If we second-guess science just because it profits some corporation with a product to sell then we won't ever get around to making real changes. California just halted sales of small IC engine (leave blowers and the like). That's a boon for all sorts of battery makers. But it is still a small step in the right direction.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Who was funding the physicists and chemists in the extremely productive 1880-1940 era? I know it was universities, but who was funding them? Genuinely have no idea how things worked back then, especially in Europe.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Industry was funding most of them, not universities. Because they were interested in all of the various applications to metallurgy, design of engines, new compounds and medicines, etc. To the degree that the public funded research, it was military labs and industries contracted by the military. The idea of universities funding basic research really took off in the postwar era when we funneled trillions of dollars into universities, massively expanding them and reshaping them. Prior to that, universities were much smaller and did not have a substantial body of faculty doing research, they focused on education and training. In modern universities, the faculty focuses on research and teaching is done by teaching assistants and non-tenured faculty, often working on short term contracts. That is all a consequence of the flood of government grants unleashed after the 1940s. Prior to the 1940s, most research was done by private enterprise or the military.

Ambolia 5y ago

I don't trust anything in science that has not been actualized either as an engineering project or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world. Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology, social sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody from 1000 years ago could have done.

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
> or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world. Impossible standard to prove. > Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology, social sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody from 1000 years ago could have done. The myth of the paleo* = good is so dumb.
- nradov 5y ago
  Nutrition science is quite complex and much of the published literature is simply junk. A lot of what we thought we knew a few decades ago turned out to be wrong. So it's not entirely unreasonable to ignore the science altogether and just eat the same foods that your ancestors ate before agriculture. It might not be optimal from a nutrition standpoint, but it's unlikely to be too far wrong. Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements.
  - Pensacola 5y ago
    > Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements. You're right: most of the protein in the diets of our paleolithic ancestors came from insects and leftover carrion from the kills of more optimized carnivores. I've never seen these recommended in a Paleo diet.
- csee 5y ago
  I don't agree it's dumb (perhaps fashionable incarnations are dumb, but not the general idea of being inspired by an ancestral diet). We evolved in that setting and our bodies were optimized for our ancestors' diet. This doesn't mean we should commit the naturalistic fallacy but as a first approximation it's a good rule of thumb. The other thing is our understanding of nutritional science is so, so bad. It's just such a difficult area to attack with the scientific method. We've made good progress for sure but there's still so many unknowns.

refurb 5y ago

As someone who has published in scientific journals, you’d be surprised how subjective things get at the bleeding edge when there isn’t hard data to prove things one way or another. A good example might be Covid vaccines. Do they elicit an immune response? Yes! Do they prevent severe disease? Yes! Do they prevent transmission? Data suggests they do. How long does that effect last for? Seems to be 6 months, maybe 9 months. What impact does the Delta virus have? Vaccines are still effective, but less so, but not 100% sure about transmission risk or longevity of immune response. There is “based on all known data, we strongly believe X” and there is “data proves X is true”. Those aren’t the same thing.

bluefox 5y ago

It's not just science, but also technology and other areas of research. Bigco throws money at some technological choices (think programming languages, or methods of machine learning, or fields like distributed computing, cryptography), and academia follows to dance at that pole. As a result, research becomes synonymous with advancing current industry choices, and all alternatives become obscure, even undignified.

vzcx 5y ago

It's foolish to think it's just about money and industry. I mean, yes, be very skeptical of publications that justify an outcome their funders' wanted. But why should that stop at industry? Should we be so naive as to think that all the other science funders and fundees up to and including NSF itself don't have their own "agendas", not necessarily aligned at all with figuring out what's true and what's not? Top of the agenda of all institutions is to survive, and second is to grow. In industry, that means making more money and making it more efficiently. In academia? Here our currency is "impact". In government? Here our currency is "power". "Impact" is really just another word for power. The desire for power, for relevance, and for status are just as potent, and just as corrupt when compared to what you might consider an "ideal science", one whose practitioners are motivated by something like "curiosity." How much has our Science been influenced from these directions? It's a disturbing question, right? I mean, can you even imagine that article? "How Scientists Weaponize Science to Create Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones and Serve Their Agenda (moar sinecures and grant money)". "How Bureaucracy Weaponizes Science and Sows Compliance to Serve Their Agenda (moar sinecures, bigger slice of the budget pie)". Seems crazy, right? But is it? A Minister of Truth is a bureaucrat with a bureaucrat's salary, and has no real interest in "profits" beyond holding onto his position and advancing in the ranks. Such an organization is basically outside the realm of the market and profit-motives, and yet, would you trust such a ministry to produce good science? If not, why not? Of course, we do not have an official ministry of truth, but if you adjust the telescope lens to bring into focus the constellation of universities, government agencies and other funding apparatus, it is rather difficult for me to distinguish what we do have from that one unified ministry. "They're the same picture." The org-chart is just more complicated.

pessimizer 5y ago
This is a shell game that masks motivations rather than revealing them. If what you're saying is that the same corrupting influences from industry act on governments, then that's obviously true. If you're saying that the corruption of government emanates from somewhere other than the interests of business (or rather, the owners of business), I'd almost accuse you of dualism. Grants, budgets, and sinecures are also handed out by the owners of industry/finance using the tool of government. Following the money always leads to the same place. edit: all we can do is attack corruption loudly and specifically when we see it, and trust nothing until we have to. The result of that is anti-vax and a return to flat-eartherism, but what can you expect from a system that prioritizes the desires of tiny elites over truth?

mannanj 5y ago

I'd love to know how the vaccine industry for COVID-19 vaccines has peddled the research in the last 2 years or so. Have they done the same thing for generic drugs like Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Monoclonal Antibodies ("More research is needed")? I'd imagine it wouldn't be difficult to see which trade organizations were involved in which papers that circulated recently around these drugs. Before COVID-19 these were touted as the most safe drugs, with a very small history of death or complications.

throwawayboise 5y ago
Exactly my thought when I read this pull quote: If you don’t like the science that’s out there, create some of your own. And then claim “we need more research.” And then label your opposition as a bunch of close-minded fanatics.
jabthedang 5y ago
Dang, there seems to be some vaccine hesitant dangerous misinforming talk in the parent comment: please deal with this asap! We all know that Pfizer and the other pharma corps are just _helping_ us out of the _kindness_ of their hearts, are super _trustworthy_ and even so virtuous as to be _heroes_!! They learned from the scandal of big tobacco that crime doesn't pay and that it's better to be honest instead of doubling down on lobbying & propaganda. They even sponsor news that relates to their products. And now they're coming out with a pill that has nothing in common with Ivermectin and supposedly gets much better results! Yay!!
- mannanj 5y ago
  Yeah. That sounds like a true story. Back on topic: is there a tool or product that can help figure out the funding sources of papers by a given topic over a timeframe? I.e. the ivermectin or hydroxyq papers published over last year-2?

blurbleblurble 5y ago

This just reminds me of the lack of popular, informed, critical, literate conversation about the risks (privacy risks and others) of widespread, centralized mm-wave cell networks. It's an awful taboo. People think you're spouting conspiracy theories when you link to published, peer reviewed papers that lay it all out. Or worse, industry whitepapers that literally spell out surveillance applications will get perceived as conspiratorial pseudoscientific nonsense. In the name of science. It's a sick inversion of the conspiracy theory dynamic. In the mm-wave cell network case, industries, governments and academics are spelling out the plan and implementing it in broad daylight. But if you speak critically of the plan, you don't know what you're talking about because you're no science expert. Well and even if you have a PhD in science, it's in the wrong field so you must be crazy. Anyhow, a lot of the most interesting stuff gets relegated to the fringes, especially when it has the potential to stir up dominant social or political perspectives. It's gaslighting by orthodoxy.

mistrial9 5y ago
yes agree - product liability is the "third rail" of public science in Western markets IMHO
Anthony-G 5y ago
I know nothing about this issue: I had to look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency to learn what mm-wave electromagnetic radiation is. Other than attenuation caused by rain-drop scattering and atmospheric absorption, I couldn’t find much information about the downsides of using EHF EMR in the context of cell networks. Can you recommend any good summaries of developments in this area and its associated risks (privacy or otherwise)?
- webmaven 5y ago
  > Can you recommend any good summaries of developments in this area and its associated risks (privacy or otherwise)? GP is probably thinking of privacy risks like: "Using WiFi to see through walls" https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133936-using-wifi-to-see-through-walls https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133936-using-wifi-to-see... The frequencies GP is talking about are higher than current WiFi, but a bit lower than the frequencies used for the terahertz radar that can show exactly what you look like naked. So, mm wavelengths ought to be adequate to show size, position, movement, posture, gestures (probably including finger and jaw movement), sightlines, and so on, more than enough to create deepfake video reconstructions of the interior of almost any dwelling and their inhabitants, though probably not quite enough detail to be able to tell that you gained a couple of pounds this week, and definitely not enough to reconstruct facial expressions. Letting your own devices detect all that with active sensing would be bad enough, but being able to get the same info with passive sensing from outside is seriously creepy.

travisgriggs 5y ago

In case you too can't actually read the graphic at the top of the paper: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement_to_Cigarette_Smokers https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement_to_Cigarett... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement#/media/File:A_Frank_Statement.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement#/media/File:...

Borrible 5y ago

Well then, thank you for smoking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Smoking_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Smoking_(novel)